DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed 2/13/2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Applicant stated that an amended specification has been filed to overcome the objections set forth in the Final mailed 11/14/2025 (page 5 of the Remarks). However, the indicated specification amendment is not found in the response received on 2/13/2026. Unsuccessful attempts were made to contact the Applicant on 3/23/2026 and 3/25/2026. Thus, the objection to the specification, which was set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/14/2025, is maintained.
Applicant indicated that claims 4, 12, and 18 were renumbered (page 5; Remarks dated 2/13/2026). Though claims 4, 12, and 18 were not renumbered in the Claims dated 2/13/2026, Applicant is reminded that renumbering of the claims should not be performed during prosecution. Since the most recently filed claims do not have renumbering issues, no objection has been placed forth. See MPEP 608.01(j).
Applicant further states “[c]laims 1-10 are pending” under “Status of Claims” and then concluded “claims 1-9 will be pending” (page 5 of the Remarks). This is incorrect. According to the claims filed 2/13/2026, claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20 are pending.
The previous objections to the claims, which were set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/14/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment, however, new objections are placed forth. See section below for details.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/14/2025 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment, however a new rejection is placed forth. See section below for details.
The objection under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) is withdrawn because the Applicant’s Amendment obviates any new matter previously introduced into the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Summary of Applicant’s arguments:
Pages 7-8: Applicant states that the instant invention is drawn to use in aerial applications with optimized construction parameters and predefined work load.
Page 9: Applicant states that Tatat focuses on developing a cable with a different application focus and design features.
Page 9: Applicant states that Tatat fails to disclose specific features including optimization of tube length and fiber length.
Page 10: Applicant states that Tatat fails to disclose that a minimum lay length of 400mm for the tubes.
Page 11: Applicant states that Kumar does not specify the particular relationship between tube length and cable length, nor the precise ETL or lay-length parameters that are critical for aerial applications.
Page 11: Applicant states that the fundamental difference is that the present invention is tailored for aerial drop applications with specific parameters.
Page 12: Applicant states that Tatat, Rahman, and Kumar fail to disclose or suggest precise dimensional parameters and their functional benefits.
Pages 8-10: Applicant references “low young’s modulus” as a required feature.
Page 11-12: Applicant argues that the claimed ranges are critical.
Response to the Applicant’s arguments:
In response to applicant's arguments (Arguments 1-2 and 5-7), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (e.g., aerial drop applications) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. More importantly, the claims themselves do not explicitly require aerial application.
In response to applicant's arguments (Argument 3), the examiner agrees that Tatat does not explicitly teach an extra tube length between 0% and 2%.
In response to applicant's arguments (Argument 4), the examiner disagrees that Tatat does not explicitly teach a minimum lay-length of 400 mm. Per Tatat, Para. 39-42:
“The stranding lay length of the stranded flextubes is typically equal to at least about 30 times the theoretical stranded-core diameter, but no more than about 40 times the outer diameter of the reduced-diameter cable.
As used herein, the term “stranding lay length” refers to the longitudinal distance along the reduced-diameter cable in which the stranded flextubes complete one helical wrap.
Moreover, as used herein, the term “theoretical stranded-core diameter” refers to the diameter of the most compact configuration possible for arranging circular flextubes in layers.
By way of example, for a high-fiber-density cable having an outer diameter of about 16 millimeters, an inner diameter of about 12 millimeters, and a theoretical stranded-core diameter of about 11 millimeters, the flextubes' stranded lay length should be between about 330 millimeters and 640 millimeters.” (Emphasis added)
Further, Tatat, as relied upon in the Final Rejection dated 11/14/2025 for the rejection of claim 1, was shown to teach another range with 408-684mm. Between these two exemplary ranges, there can be no doubt that Tatat disclosed values above 400 mm while also showing that values of 400mm are possible. The examiner further points out that the claimed language does not specifically limit the claim to only 400 mm, but to 400 mm or greater. This necessarily means that the range of 408-684mm calculated from Table 1 teaches a portion of the claimed range of 400 mm or more, even without needing to point to the other exemplary range. See MPEP 2131.03(I):
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)). (Emphasis added)
In response to applicant's argument (Argument 5) against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In further response to applicant's arguments (Argument 5), the examiner agrees that Kumar does not specify the particular relationship between tube length and cable length, nor the precise ETL or lay-length parameters, but notes that the rejection does not rely solely upon Kumar.
In further response to applicant's arguments (Argument 7), the examiner agrees that Tatat, Rahman, and Kumar fail to individually suggest all of the amended claim limitations, excepting Argument 4 where Tatat teaches the lay-length range as discussed above.
In response to applicant's arguments (Argument 8), the examiner disagrees. Without claiming a low Young’s modulus, the structure does not have to have a low Young’s modulus. Further, “low” is not identified as any sort of minimum value or range. Further still, the Applicant did not provide proper units for Young’s modulus within the original disclosure so it is impossible to explicitly define a “low young’s modulus” so that it may be compared to the prior art. Lastly, Tatat discloses Young’s moduli of 10 MPa to 500 MPa in Para. 20-21 which may be interpreted as “low” values for Young’s modulus. Thus, arguing on the basis of Young’s modulus is moot.
In response to applicant's arguments (Argument 9), the examiner disagrees that criticality has been established. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1960). An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). “A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference.” In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Young’s modulus has been disclosed with the wrong units (N is indicative of a force and not a force per area) in at least Para. 11, 22, 56, and 59. Further, Young’s modulus should use a capital Y as is proper for names.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: "less than 2% the cable" should instead state "less than 2% of the cable".
Claim 4, line 2: "two fiber" should be pluralized and should instead state "two fibers".
Claim 12, line 3: “the extra tube length” should instead state “an extra tube length”.
Claim 18, line 2: "two fiber" should be pluralized and should instead state "two fibers".
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, and 12-13 are objected to because of inconsistencies with spacing. The examiner has identified the below errors. The Applicant's help is requested in identifying and correcting any other instances found.
Claim 1, line 3: there appears to be an unnecessary line break after "tubes".
Claim 4, line 2: there appears to be additional spaces around "optical fiber".
Claim 7, lines 2-3: there appears to be additional spaces scattered throughout.
Claim 9, line 2: "blocking gel" has too many spaces.
Claim 12, line 4: "(104) , and" should not have a space before the comma and instead state "(104), and".
Claim 12, line 5: "atleast" should instead state "at least".
Claim 13, line 1: "12,wherein" should instead state "12, wherein".
Claim 13, line 2: "atleast" should instead state "at least".
Claim 13, line 2: "(100,200)is" should instead state "(100,200) is".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12, line 4 states “…, wherein the one or more tubes (104) , …”. The limitation is never completed and fails to further limit the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as “…, wherein the one or more tubes (104) have a tube length greater than a cable length, …” which matches the language of claim 1.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatat et al. in US 20110091171 A1 (hereinafter "Tatat") as evidenced by ITU, Characteristics of a bending-loss insensitive single-mode optical fibre and cable for the access network, Recommendation ITU-T G.657, 11/2009 (hereinafter "Recommendation ITU-T G.657") and in view of Lang et al. in US 20200285011 A1 (hereinafter "Lang") and in further view of Grulick et al. in US Patent 5,904,037 (hereinafter "Grulick").
Regarding claim 1, Tatat discloses an optical fiber cable (20; see Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more tubes (21) enclosing at least one optical fiber (22),
wherein the one or more tubes (flextubes 21 are interpreted as the tubes) have a tube length greater than a cable length (stranding necessarily requires tubes to be longer than a cable in order for the tubes to coil or helically twist within the cable), and
a lay-length of equal to or more than 400 mm (lay-length is 30 to 40 times the cable outer diameter, see Para. 39; Tatat discloses that the cable outer diameter is 13.6-17.1mm in Table 1, thus Tatat implicitly discloses a lay-length of 408mm to 684mm which anticipates a range of 400mm or more),
wherein at least one optical fiber has a fiber length (necessarily present),
a sheath (cable jacket 23 are interpreted as the sheath) surrounding the one or more tubes (21); and
one or more strength members (25) at least partially embedded in the sheath (23; see Fig. 1).
Tatat fails to explicitly teach:
wherein an extra tube length (ETL) is greater than 0% and less than 2% of the cable length,
wherein the fiber length is 0% to 2% greater than the cable length,
wherein each of the one or more strength members is stranded metallic wires.
However, Tatat suggested that the excess fiber length (i.e., the fiber length being greater than the cable length by some percentage) was already known (see Para. 78 where two incorporated references mention excess fiber length in their titles, US Patents 6,618,538 and 6,922,515).
Lang teaches a related optical cable (with aerial applications, see Para. 87):
wherein each of the one or more strength members is stranded metallic wires (“stranded steel wires” are interpreted as the stranded metallic wires since steel is a known metal; see Para. 53 listing materials for strength members).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stranded metallic wires of Lang as the strength members in the optical fiber cable of Tatat for the purpose of strengthening the cable thereby achieving a more desirable device, and since stranded metallic wires were known alternative strength members in the prior art, and since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Lang further teaches the optical cable:
wherein an extra tube length (ETL) is greater than 0% and less than 2% of the cable length (exemplary cables A and B of Table 1 show that “buffer tube excess”, which is interpreted as extra tube length, may be 0.01% and 0.04% respectively, which fall within the claimed range).
Tatat and Lang do not clearly teach why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want extra tube length longer than the cable length.
Grulick teaches why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want the extra tube length longer than they cable length. Specifically, Col. 1 lines 47-50 which state:
“[A]n advantage of the S-Z stranding method is that the buffer tube and fiber lengths are longer than the cable length. The craftsman uses the extra tube and fiber lengths as slack to make the splice.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the extra tube length greater than 0% and less than 2% as taught by Lang in the cable of Tatat for the purpose of creating slack when splicing, as noted by Grulick, thereby achieving improved ease of implementation for the technician.
Lang teaches that the fiber length is 0% of the cable length (Para. 66 states that over-feed may or may not exist, if it does not exist then the fiber length is necessarily 0% greater than the cable length; see also Para. 83 which has no overfeed). Lang further teaches that overfeed is desirable since it can reduce the strain and attenuation experienced by the optical fiber. Since Lang teaches an end-point of the claimed range and even teaches towards values above 0%, such as up to 2%, Lang is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness through implication of values that may fall within the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent any evidence of (a) the criticality of the claimed range to produce new and unexpected results, and/or (b) the prior art teaching away from the claimed invention. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(III). In the present case, the prior art's range renders obvious the claimed range because the current invention fails to establish criticality of the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill would have expected the prior art to operate as disclosed when utilizing the claimed range. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention. (Solely to expedite prosecution, the examiner notes that fiber lengths longer than the cable length were incredibly well-known in the art at the time of filing and an extensive list is included in the Conclusion section below).
Additionally, Grulick teaches why fiber length greater than the cable length is desirable (see Col. 1 lines 47-50; see above).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fiber length be greater than 0% to 2% than the cable length as taught by Lang in the cable of Tatat for the purpose of creating slack when splicing, as noted by Grulick, thereby achieving improved ease of implementation for the technician; or to have the fiber length be exactly 0% as taught by Lang in the cable of Tatat for the purpose of using as little material as possible thereby driving down the manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 7, Tatat/Lang/Grulick discloses that it is within the scope of their invention to employ a cable (20) as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, with at least one optical fiber (22) that meets the ITU-T G.657.A standard (see Para. 65), which at the time of disclosure, required a macrobend loss of less than or equal to 0.75 dB/turn at 1550 nm when the at least one optical fiber (22) is bent around a mandrel of 10mm radius. (See Para. 65 which discloses that the cable of Tatat met the G.657.A standard at the time of disclosure and see Annotated Fig. 1 of Recommendation ITU-T G.657 which outlines that the maximum value at 1550 nm for a 10mm radius mandrel is 0.75 or 0.1 dB/turn for G.657.A1 or A2 respectively. These ranges fully anticipate the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 8, Tatat/Lang/Grulick discloses the optical fiber cable (20) as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the at least one optical fiber (22) has a diameter of 200±20 micrometers (All examples of Table 1 disclose 200 micrometers which anticipates the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, Tatat/Lang/Grulick discloses the optical fiber cable (20) as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising a water blocking gel (filling grease is interpreted as water-blocking gel; see Para. 46) in the one or more tubes (21).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Tatat discloses an optical fiber cable (20; see Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more tubes (21), wherein each of the one or more tubes (21) encloses at least one optical fiber (22),
wherein the one or more tubes (flextubes 21 are interpreted as the tubes) have a tube length greater than a cable length (stranding necessarily requires tubes to be longer than a cable in order for the tubes to coil or helically twist within the cable), and
a lay-length of equal to or more than 400 mm (lay-length is 30 to 40 times the cable outer diameter, see Para. 39; Tatat discloses that the cable outer diameter is 13.6-17.1mm in Table 1, thus Tatat implicitly discloses a lay-length of 408mm to 684mm which anticipates a range of 400mm or more),
wherein at least one optical fiber has a fiber length (necessarily present),
wherein the at least one optical fiber (22) has a diameter of 200±20 micrometers (All examples of Table 1 disclose 200 micrometers which anticipates the claimed range);
a sheath (23) surrounding the one or more tubes (21); and
one or more strength members (25) embedded in the sheath (23), wherein the at least one optical fiber (22) has a macrobend loss of less than or equal to 0.75 dB/turn at 1550 nm when the at least one optical fiber (22) is bent around a mandrel of 10mm radius (see Para. 65 which discloses that the cable of Tatat met the G.657.A standard at the time of disclosure and see Annotated Fig. 1 of Recommendation ITU-T G.657 which outlines that the maximum value at 1550 nm for a 10mm radius mandrel is 0.75 or 0.1 dB/turn for G.657.A1 or A2 respectively. These ranges fully anticipate the claimed range.), wherein the optical fiber cable (20) breaks at a pre-defined load (necessarily present as all cables must break; see Para. 32 with regards to crush resistance).
Tatat fails to explicitly teach:
wherein an extra tube length (ETL) is greater than 0% and less than 2% of the cable length,
wherein the fiber length is 0% to 2% greater than the cable length,
wherein each of the one or more strength members is stranded metallic wires.
However, Tatat suggested that the excess fiber length (i.e., the fiber length being greater than the cable length by some percentage) was already known (see Para. 78 where two incorporated references mention excess fiber length in their titles, US Patents 6,618,538 and 6,922,515).
Lang teaches a related optical cable (with aerial applications, see Para. 87):
wherein each of the one or more strength members is stranded metallic wires (“stranded steel wires” are interpreted as the stranded metallic wires since steel is a known metal; see Para. 53 listing materials for strength members).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stranded metallic wires of Lang as the strength members in the optical fiber cable of Tatat for the purpose of strengthening the cable thereby achieving a more desirable device, and since stranded metallic wires were known alternative strength members in the prior art, and since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Lang further teaches the optical cable:
wherein an extra tube length (ETL) is greater than 0% and less than 2% of the cable length (exemplary cables A and B of Table 1 show that “buffer tube excess”, which is interpreted as extra tube length, may be 0.01% and 0.04% respectively, which fall within the claimed range).
Tatat and Lang do not clearly teach why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want extra tube length longer than the cable length.
Grulick teaches why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want the extra tube length longer than they cable length. Specifically, Col. 1 lines 47-50 which state:
“[A]n advantage of the S-Z stranding method is that the buffer tube and fiber lengths are longer than the cable length. The craftsman uses the extra tube and fiber lengths as slack to make the splice.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the extra tube length greater than 0% and less than 2% as taught by Lang in the cable of Tatat for the purpose of creating slack when splicing, as noted by Grulick, thereby achieving improved ease of implementation for the technician.
Lang teaches that the fiber length is 0% of the cable length (Para. 66 states that over-feed may or may not exist, if it does not exist then the fiber length is necessarily 0% greater than the cable length; see also Para. 83 which has no overfeed). Lang further teaches that overfeed is desirable since it can reduce the strain and attenuation experienced by the optical fiber. Since Lang teaches an end-point of the claimed range and even teaches towards values above 0%, such as up to 2%, Lang is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness through implication of values that may fall within the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent any evidence of (a) the criticality of the claimed range to produce new and unexpected results, and/or (b) the prior art teaching away from the claimed invention. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(III). In the present case, the prior art's range renders obvious the claimed range because the current invention fails to establish criticality of the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill would have expected the prior art to operate as disclosed when utilizing the claimed range. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention. (Solely to expedite prosecution, the examiner notes that fiber lengths longer than the cable length were incredibly well-known in the art at the time of filing and an extensive list is included in the Conclusion section below).
Additionally, Grulick teaches why fiber length greater than the cable length is desirable (see Col. 1 lines 47-50; see above).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fiber length be greater than 0% to 2% than the cable length as taught by Lang in the cable of Tatat for the purpose of creating slack when splicing, as noted by Grulick, thereby achieving improved ease of implementation for the technician; or to have the fiber length be exactly 0% as taught by Lang in the cable of Tatat for the purpose of using as little material as possible thereby driving down the manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 13, Tatat/Lang/Grulick discloses the optical fiber cable (20) as claimed in claim 12 as discussed above, wherein a number of at least one optical fiber (22) in the optical fiber cable (20) is greater than or equal to 72 (All examples of Table 1 disclose more than 72 fibers).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatat et al. in US 20110091171 A1 (hereinafter "Tatat") as evidenced by ITU, Characteristics of a bending-loss insensitive single-mode optical fibre and cable for the access network, Recommendation ITU-T G.657, 11/2009 (hereinafter "Recommendation ITU-T G.657") in view of Lang et al. in US 20200285011 A1 (hereinafter "Lang") in further view of Grulick et al. in US Patent 5,904,037 (hereinafter "Grulick") and in still further view of Kumar et al. in US 20210063661 A1 (hereinafter "Kumar").
Regarding claim 4, Tatat/Lang/Grulick discloses the optical fiber cable (20) as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach that at least two optical fibers (22) are a ribbon.
Kumar teaches optical fibers forming a ribbon.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ribbon(s) of Kumar in the cable of Tatat/Lang/Grulick for the purpose of providing more fibers in a given space compared to loose fibers thereby achieving higher fiber density.
Regarding claim 5, Tatat/Lang/Grulick discloses the optical fiber cable (20) as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach that adjacent optical fibers (22) in a ribbon are intermittently connected along a length.
Kumar teaches adjacent optical fibers in the ribbon are intermittently connected along a length (see Para. 13 and 35).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intermittently connected fibers of Kumar in the cable of Tatat for the purpose of increased flexibility and packing density thereby achieving a more desirable optical fiber cable.
Regarding claim 18, Tatat/Lang/Grulick discloses the optical fiber cable (20) as claimed in claim 12 as discussed above, but fails to teach that the at least two optical fibers (22) are a ribbon such that adjacent optical fibers (22) in the ribbon are intermittently connected along a length.
Kumar teaches a ribbon such that adjacent optical fibers in the ribbon are intermittently connected along a length.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intermittently connected fibers of Kumar in the cable of Tatat/Lang/Grulick for the purpose of increased flexibility and packing density thereby achieving a more desirable optical fiber cable.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 6459837 B1 discloses aerial, metallic strength member, aerial installation, ribbons.
US 6370303 B1 discloses rectilinear lengths of fiber and strength members.
Questel Broadcast Systems, How to calculate Excess fiber length due to stranding in a fiber optic cable, Web Archive: 05/17/2021 discloses general information about stranding calculations.
The following disclose lay-length of 400mm or more:
US 6185351 B1
US 11454775 B1
US 5487126 A
US 20150309274 A1
US 20150268427 A1
US 20160025947 A1
The following disclose extra tube length greater than or equal to cable length:
Borzycki et al., Accurate Location of Fiber Cable Fault with OTDR, 4/2021, Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, pp. 42-52.
US 4859025 A
US 4146302 A
US 6392151 B1
The following disclose fiber length greater than cable length:
R&M, Cable knowledge: Shrinking behavior, Technical Information, 2019, pp. 1-4.
US 20200264059 A1
US 5125063 A
US 5838864 A
The following disclose fiber length greater than tube length:
GB 2197497 A
US 20200056453 A1
US 20150370024 A1
US 20150117810 A1
US 5109457 A
US 4477147 A
US 5509097 A
US 5649043 A
US 6374023 B1
US 7006740 B1
US 20020009272 A1
US 7373055 B1
US 8805144 B1
US 20150153531 A1
US 20150153531 A1
US 6674945 B1
US 20020126970 A1
US 6922515 B2
US 20100092138 A1
US 20030059182 A1
US 5229851 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874